Justice comes full circle when these men marry and have daughters. Then point out that the picture a man is looking at is someone's daughter, and watch his face fall. It sucks the enjoyment right out of it!

That said, I have worked in a number of environments that are male-dominated and had to turn a blind-eye to nudie pictures on the walls. Very rarely is there any malice in the comments made. Does it objectify women - well yes, but 95% of men who use porn are quite able to make the distinction between fantasy and reality (there are always a few simple-minded people that have trouble separating the two, but you cant please everyone). A few are hate-fueled and pose a risk to women at large. They would anyway.

Therefore while I dont like porn, I dont see that it necessarily does much harm, as long as its behind closed doors (after all its adult stuff, doesnt need to be paraded around in front of kids, which is why it shouldnt be displayed for purchase at petrol stations).

Kalin “Censoring smutty magazines is the first step down the slippery slope toward women wearing tents. There really isn't much difference.” Exactly, the US were big on the Hays commission in the 1930’s, that on the failed attempts of prohibition. Better people make up their own minds than a bunch of prudes try to make it for us.

Country Gal “Then point out that the picture a man is looking at is someone's daughter, and watch his face fall. It sucks the enjoyment right out of it!”

I don’t think you are very qualified to talk for us red blooded males.

I have walked around Kings Cross and felt saddened at the sight of those poor girls who trade their bodies to the high rollers, I have often thought - they are someone daughter, where are their parents?

However, I never thought that Anna Nicole Smith the doyen of Penthouse (or Playboy etc) was ever “exploited” by any man, in fact, I suspect quite the opposite.

Ultimately, boys will be boys and enjoy images of lusty busty lovelies and girls will be girls and prepared to satisfy the inquisitiveness of boys both in magazines and on their backs.

As for fathers – I have 2 daughters, I know the eldest’s boyfriend was a little wary of me when he first moved in with my daughter, but she already owned her own house, therefore I do not pretend to tell her what to do in it.

As for objectifying – well who cares – better to be a “sex object” than a “rejected object” and as you say, what goes on between consenting adults has nothing to do with anyone else.

“Real men” are capable of separating their daughters from the rest of womankind. It is a shame so many unreal women cannot do the same.

Col, the women in the photos were not giving their consent for thugs in Iraq to use them as objects.

Now for the ludicrous statement made by someone that the boys in Iraq do it inside because they can and that women in Australia don't wear burkas.

Can some enlightened soul tell me just what he is saying.

I have a daughter who is now 33 and a grand-daughter who is nearly 16. If they were objectified in this way to suit someone else I would protest very loudly indeed.

I notice that Boaz again accuses me of ranting - something he does only when he refuses to concede that I am being quite honest. What we are doing in Iraq is illegally occupying a place where we are not wanted.

Now what if some arabs decided to dress one of them as an Australian soldier and put his gun to the person's head and spread it on the internet as a joke? I can hear the ranting now from the neocons about the "violence and lack of humanity of the arabs and muslims".

The problem is you are all hypocrites.

No Marilyn. I'm afraid that in agreeing to pose for a pornographic magazine, the women in those pictures had to be aware that they would be viewed by some 'thugs' as you call them. To believe anything less is simply naive. In this, they were bound to be objectified.

Now there could be a myriad of reasons why these women posed for the pictures - perhaps they were desperate, perhaps they needed the money. All fair enough, and issues that need to be addressed.
There would have been some of them however, that were neither desperate, nor 'forced' into doing those pictures.

The only issue I have with feminism, is it all too often claims to represent all women, when to simply assume all women share the same views is most certainly incorrect.

Fight for your rights, sure. But if you were to ban pornography entirely, you would be robbing others of their right to express themselves how they wish, and earn money, how they wish, if they are indeed an exhibitionist.

The men in this situation are being blamed for taking a simplistic view of images, without proof of their individual opinions.
This alleged objectification of women is no worse than the people who have viewed this snippet of footage and assumed the worst of these men.

Sheesh, where to start with this predictably nonsensical fodder...

1. typically sugar-coated, ranting, boiler-plate threads of thought and reasoning. eg, tactic of connecting this to sexual abuse and sex-slave trafficking, is straight out of the playbook. l think she did that in her ranting diatribe about Blokes World festivities leading to same.

2. predictably condascending, patronising, base and negative view of men as;
a. sexual predators
b. incapable of distinguishing fantasy (porn) from reality (interaction). People think what they think and do what they do, try and credit us with a basic capacity for understanding the difference.
Wot a surprise re this subject matter, from this scribe.

3. men know what is acceptable treatment of and behaviour towards women... our mothers (and fathers) taught us that.

4. correlation is not causation re specious links between this, that and the other.

5. thinly veiled vilification with a nice sugar coating of plausible deniability

6. advocating for thought and even perception control (bizarre), because thoughts lead to actions. Right-o Buddha, give it a rest.

7. Boring

8. Boring

9. Boring

10. Boring

peace

Cornflower,

why can't you be against what you percieve to be the negative treatment of women in Western and non-Western cultures at the same time? I don't like women having to be covered up or have their genitals mutilated to fit some social idea of 'chastity', but I also don't like women being sold the idea that to be liberated means to appear in Playboy and to staisfy male desires. I'd rather have a situation where women are free to express their sexuality as they wish, without being judged as a prude or a whore for it.

Of course women get paid well to appear in pornography, but this doesn't constitute a conspiracy against males. The fact that pornography, prostitution and modelling are areas in which women earn more than men and are some of the highest paid jobs for women only points to the fact that our society values women for their bodies rather than for their minds or for their personalities.

For me, pornography is like fast food- just as fast food is cheap, readily available and bears little resemblance to real food, so too is pornography cheap, readily available and bears little resemblance to real sex.